Exponential Scoring System

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

Exponential Scoring System

Postby Lord_Bremen on Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:20 am

The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:
    The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
    My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
    This would change points awarded as follows:
    Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
    Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
    1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
    2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
    3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Polymorphic Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Woodruff on Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:50 am

Lord_Bremen wrote:The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:
    The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
    My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
    This would change points awarded as follows:
    Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
    Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
    1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
    2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
    3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]


The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Lord_Bremen on Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:18 am

Woodruff wrote:
The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.


Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Polymorphic Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:06 pm

Lord_Bremen wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.


Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.


I concur. With the drop in membership numbers, anything that allows more games to fill is a positive change.
show
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
Entertainment Contributor
Entertainment Contributor
 
Posts: 4227
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Woodruff on Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:20 pm

Lord_Bremen wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.


Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.


I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Lord_Bremen on Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:23 pm

Woodruff wrote:
I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.


Same reasons as given here: viewtopic.php?f=704&t=274
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Polymorphic Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby TheForgivenOne on Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:16 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Lord_Bremen wrote:The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:
    The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
    My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
    This would change points awarded as follows:
    Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
    Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
    1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
    2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
    3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]


The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.


I'd have to go with no on removing the max on the cap. Take a user with an excessively low score. He could absolutely fly up the scoreboard if he get's a lucky win. Say the lowest person on the scoreboard was to luckily beat a Colonel with a score of 2500. With no cap, it would look like (2500/2)*20 = 25 000. Heck, even if he beat a NR, he would win 10 000 points. And that's only off 1 player! If he were to win a 8 player game...
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5157
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (7)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:58 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Lord_Bremen wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.


Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.


I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.


Some of us presume that points are less an indicator of skill than others. I think that those with points are just smart enough to play on settings that they win on. Some players are better and worse, but I don't think in most cases the distance is great enough to matter.
show
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
Entertainment Contributor
Entertainment Contributor
 
Posts: 4227
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby OliverFA on Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:16 pm

I think this proposal is a fair one. It keeps risk for high ranked players, but minimizes absurd situations. A player who consistently wins/loses will still go up/down the table, but this will be a more gradual, less drastic change.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby chapcrap on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:25 pm

OliverFA wrote:I think this proposal is a fair one. It keeps risk for high ranked players, but minimizes absurd situations. A player who consistently wins/loses will still go up/down the table, but this will be a more gradual, less drastic change.

I agree. I like the proposal.
Image
User avatar
Captain chapcrap
 
Posts: 9581
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City
Medals: 168
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (31)
General Achievement (16) Clan Achievement (17) Training Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (34)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:41 pm

Woodruff wrote:I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.


MLB is about entertainment. It's not entertaining to watch that game. But, if you're the Southeast Community College, you'd jump at the chance to play against the Giants, just for the experience of learning from good players. We juggle both casual and competitive players on this site, and if the casual players ever want to become more competitive, they can do so by playing the experts. I generally support ideas that encourage high and low ranked players to compete together, that don't encourage farming, and I think this is one such idea.

BTW: TFO is right, the cap has to stay.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Exponential Scoring System

Postby Lord_Bremen on Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:56 pm

For the record, my proposal had nothing to do with the cap - it leaves it unchanged. I'm not sure why the dude tried hijacking my thread about it.

I don't think anyone has had a problem with what I actually suggested so far.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Polymorphic Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (2)


Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login